Here’s a puppet show for you:
“Hi, I’m Hank Hyperbole”
“And I’m Sammy Sarcasm”
“Gee, Sammy - when people see us, should they freak out and drop a load in their pants?”
“Heck no, Hank - not unless they’re a fucking moron.”
“You’re right, Sammy - now let’s all sing a song.”
When we use hy-per-bo-le
It’s not supposed to be taken literally
I wouldn’t really rape a pharmacist
It’s just a joke, so don’t get pissed
So if you thought I was serious
Get a fucking life, 'cuz you’re a :wally
blowero, that is easily among the greatest posts I’ve seen in my time on this board. I’d shake your hand if this wasn’t the internet.
Nope. I’ve had a pharmacist refuse a prescription because it interfered with one of my other meds, but then the pharmacist was overruled by my doctor. The doctor knew of the interaction, but she and I decided that I needed that drug (to help save my arm, it was an antibiotic) and that I would just have to live with the interaction for a couple of weeks.
So…I turned in the prescription, pharmacist refuses to fill it, I call the doc, we discuss the interaction, and I tell the pharmacist that I was willing to live with the interaction. The pharmacist did his duty in informing me of the interaction, and I am glad that he did, but he also accepted the fact that my doctor and I had decided that I NEEDED this drug, interaction or no.
And it wasn’t simply a case of stopping the other drug…the other drug is Paxil, and stopping an antidepressant like that all at once is not a good idea. The withdrawal symptoms are hell. I DID cut my dose quite a bit, but I was closely supervised while doing it.
Incidentally, I live fairly close to where this all happened. And I’ve had my problems with Eckerd’s pharmacists in the past, mostly having to do with them giving me the wrong medications, so I quit going there. This happened at three different locations. I think that perhaps the Eckerd’s in this area does not screen pharmacists as well as they should.
To sum up everything I’ve been able to find on this subject: The Morning After Pill is legal in the US. Some pharmacies carry it, and some don’t. The pharmacist presumably could have gotten a job at one of the pharmacies that don’t carry it, WalMart for instance. I’m fairly sure that there’s at least one WalMart in Denton, I go through that town a couple of times a year, and I’m almost positive that I’ve seen one. However, the pharmacist chose to take a job at a drugstore which DOES carry the MAP. Did he make his objections to dispensing the MAP known to his supervisors? We don’t know, but we do know this:
The pharmacist said that there were “three of us here, and we all agree on the issue.” (ibid) Apparently, it took the three of them about 15 minutes or so to come to this decision. This isn’t long to wait for an ordinary prescription, but the rape victim’s support person (a male friend) had made it known to the pharmacy staff that it was for a rape victim. Instead of filling the prescription, the pharmacist called a meeting and then started yelling at the support person.
Whether the pharmacist was acting morally or not, he certainly was not acting professionally, and neither were the other two who were with him.
I’ll offer another cite.to support the idea of development .from here
And another
Well let’s see. By my count I’ve offered up three different cites to support the notion that there is embryonic development of the organism in the first week after fertilization.
You’ve offered the word “fucking” several times to bolster your argument.
I eagerly await proof from you that there is no embryonic development in the first week after fertilization.
Or…you know, a retraction.
I suspect you’ll offer neither.
I’ve actually been to Denton, and I can say there is more than one pharmacy. As most know (this isn’t a personal relply to haj) I’m pro-life. But I accept it’s a legal drug.
However, we also live in the US, not the Soviet Union. Pharmacies are still private businesses and are allowed to conduct business as such. Does a pharmacy turn away profit based on a moral stance? Yes. Based on American law, is said pharmacy allowed to turn away business based on a moral stance? Yes. So long as there is another outlet within reasonable distance. The reason is that the one druggist isn’t the only one available in the 50 mile radius. or 40, 0r 30, you get the point.
There may be exceptions, but I’ve been to Denton and know that there is a pharmacy within 300 yards of any other.
This is the same as one drug store carrying a pseudoephedrine product, and complaining the one across the street doesn’t
As has been pointed out already (see Lynn’s post, for example), Eckerd’s has chosen to carry this drug and its pharmacists violated company policy by refusing to dispense it. So your comment is pretty much irrelevant to the incident under discussion.
A blastocyst is not an embryo. Your own cites vindicate me.
Wow, you’re just making your case of peace among man. Can we keep in mind that DtC would be the first in line to sue a medical professional since they are all Bush pawns?
Yes, forget who owns the store, the Pharmacist is the one that actually fills the script. But s/he should just go ahead and do whatever Diogenes says is right.
I mean, to hell with what the liberals have set up to nail the health care professionals, the guy employing the pharmacist is the only one to pay the price, right? The guy who spent 12 years in school doesn’t know what DtC does.
The pharamacy did not turn away business, an employee acted counter to the policy of the pharmacy. You agree that a business has the right to fire employees who won’t do their job, don’t you?
And the “moral” stance is fucking ignorant bullshit. The MAP is a contraceptive, not a fucking abortion pill.
Pharamcists do not spend 12 years in school, you fucking moron. They’re not doctors and they’re not “health care professionals.”
They work for the store. They are paid by the store to put pills in bottles and that’s all they’re fucking paid for. Any concerns about a given drug are supposed to addressed to the prescribing physician and any decisions will be made by the physician and the patient. The pharmacist has zero say and zero right to impede the civil rights of the customer.
The pharmacy in question has made the decision to make emergency contraception available to the public and any employees need to abide by that policy or work somewhere else. It’s simple…and so are you.
I have no idea what your comment about me suing health care professionals is supposed to mean or what it has to do with this topic.
I think we’re all kinda getting lost in the whole pro-abortion/anti-abortion smokescreen.
The whole point of this is that a pharmacist and his staff refused to dispense a legally prescribed drug to a woman on the basis of their personal morals, against the direct policy of their mutual employer, and apparently, state law.
These people do not own the pharmacy; they are employees of a large, nationwide chain. They do not have the option (nor the luxury) of allowing their personal morals or ethics to determine which prescriptions to fill or not to fill. Their job, as their employer sees it, is to fill every prescription that is given to them, barring medical issues. Moral issues do not equal medical issues.
Robin
Care to try again, sparky?
That period of development is referred to as “embryonic growth”…
I’ll make the request again.
Can you offer any cite to support your assertion that there is NO embryonic development prior to implantation?
Really. You can do it. I’ll be waiting.
Adding up the 4 years for undergrad, plus med school, plus specialized training, it’s pretty close to 12 years. But I see the level of discourse you want to stay at, so I’ll just fucking try the fuck not to fucking debate any fucking point with you any fucking longer. You fucking smart fuck. I’ll go fuck myself now, and try not to fuck myself up while doing so. Why the fuck do I even try? Geuss I’mm just fucked-up.
Yes. I also think that businesses have the right to make accomodations for their employees’ moral beliefs if they so desire, and that the decision to make such accomodations is a business decision that will be dicatated by the value of the employee versus the loss of business caused by making the accomodation.
It isn’t a binary choice. A sufficiently-valuable employee can certainly negotiate a carveout for himself from general store policy. If the employer agrees, I don’t see how it’s any of our damn business.
Duffer, what the hell are you talking about? Even a doctor of pharmacy does not go to medical school. It’s seven years of college, period.
I’ll take you seriously when you start showing some sign of knowing what the fuck you’re talking about.
Robin, daughter of a Doctor of Pharmacy (University of Southern California, '67)
Did you not see this from Lynn’s post? The business in question had made no such accomodation for the employees:
Even if a pharmacy were to make that accomodation, I think it would still be obligated to inform the customers up front that anything they wish to purchase may be denied based on the personal whim of any individual employee. It would also be nice if they had an alternate person behind the counter to compensate for stonewalling, moralistic morons who won’t sell emergency contraceptives to rape victims.
Hey, stupid, all you need to be a licensed pharmacist is a four year BS in Pharmacy and to pass the licensure test. Like MsRobyn said, even a doctorate in Pharmacy requires only an additional three year graduate degree.
MsRobyn
From what I recall, Pharmacists have to fulfill full medical doctor training. Might be the same as 1967, but I admit I forgot to go to medical school. I understand your dad went through in 1967, but can you correct me on anyone going through within the last 35 years? My mom earned her RN status in 1969, my dad his MD in 1971, but I’d never compare those to today’s arguments. FWIW, both are dead, so I can’t ask them the latest facts.
I don’t purport to be an expert, but facts are usually only brought about on these boards by wild challenges
Never mind MsRobyn, I’m stupid. Any answer will go over my head. I’ll take DtC at face value from now on.